IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Issue 134 - What To Do With Appendix A.5?

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Thu, 14 March 2024 15:32 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88FFAC14F5F7 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 08:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=tana.it header.b="7+sy5HCc"; dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it header.b="A8/ireeO"
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6xLeySk7VAUN for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 08:32:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [94.198.96.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 987A3C14F6B0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 08:32:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=epsilon; t=1710430349; bh=2NfuC6k3VPfWJqocwG1Ky0fGboUBgBgAleTCSHb3sOw=; h=Author:Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=7+sy5HCcEoDjuuGwubSg8BG91UZcJxO7L0eVJ7QqYe3mvntM40x3StZubqETkcfQw rO0GlA9VKIQlIthjmAvAA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1710430349; bh=2NfuC6k3VPfWJqocwG1Ky0fGboUBgBgAleTCSHb3sOw=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=A8/ireeOICgu0lu5BlIhTyU/OHPpGf2ao1OzVtw6PIrprwtZJXhTftSMMyA/QT4kM QqspSg7PCPt901VYPfkSlcuxw7oPkvibSuDMOQoFWbHvgxdankze9OXGCb9ctJauMr 4S+PcXVQgXHpU4mbRdPIRjjLC/L6d50WFax9R2n+IyViYwS+K5+r02+nogwQh
Original-Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Issue 134 - What To Do With Appendix A.5?
Author: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.120] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.120]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC144.0000000065F3188D.00000A7B; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:32:29 +0100
Message-ID: <d06d126b-c797-432c-80fd-3e2060b95fdd@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:32:31 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US, it-IT
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <CAHej_8ndZuwM1ve3hhFvW5oFYFLj7mf=XJ0GFLQaPRBF4etHOA@mail.gmail.com>
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <CAHej_8ndZuwM1ve3hhFvW5oFYFLj7mf=XJ0GFLQaPRBF4etHOA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/9uDddxAP5h1QsRzNC4QXHkfOsH0>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Issue 134 - What To Do With Appendix A.5?
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:32:39 -0000

On Thu 14/Mar/2024 15:53:30 +0100 Todd Herr wrote:
> Colleagues,
> 
> Two people have spoken up on list asking for removal of this section
> (thread subject is "A.5 Issues with ADSP in Operation") while one person
> has registered opposition to the idea. I don't believe this is anywhere
> close to critical mass for consensus.
> 
> I've opened the subject issue for this matter, and in that issue I floated
> the possibility of moving A.5 to section 7, Changes from RFC 7489, with
> some text along the lines of "we deleted the discussion of ADSP from this
> version, but it's preserved here for historical purposes"
> 
> Discuss...


Could do.  Although I'm uncertain about the value of preserving large passages 
of RFC 7489 in Section 7.  In fact, RFC 7489 is not going to be deleted from 
the archives.  It would be enough to reference it.


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email